- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 70
Hi. I have a tenant smoking pot in his unit. We have no smoking signs up in the windows. Anyone else ran into this? It is disturbing other tenants.
Tenant smoking pot in unit.
- Thread starter InvestagainInc
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 120
Get complaints from other tenants and serve N6 for illegal act.
The test for an illegal act to evict is not the "criminality" of the behaviour but the effect of the residential environment: Someone running a serious fraud scheme from their apartment has no effect of the unit and will not generally lead to an eviction. Seemingly minor illegal activity that disturbs others however will
In that regard the evidence of tenants who are disturbed is critical.
The test for an illegal act to evict is not the "criminality" of the behaviour but the effect of the residential environment: Someone running a serious fraud scheme from their apartment has no effect of the unit and will not generally lead to an eviction. Seemingly minor illegal activity that disturbs others however will
In that regard the evidence of tenants who are disturbed is critical.
S
Seeley
Guest
Guest
If you end up serving a eviction notice on this issue, which I can almost guarantee you will end up having to, you can not win the eviction outright. Initially the first eviction will be voided by him not smoking for the allotted time period. He will then smoke again and the second eviction notice (within 6 months) will result in a board hearing.
You must have another tenant at the hearing to testify in person, written statement from tenants is not sufficient they must testify in person, you will likely have the tenant be given a conditional stay if they guarantee they will not smoke in the unit again. Ask that you be given the right to immediately apply for eviction of they break that agreement. That will of course be denied as the board will want the tenant to have the right to another hearing.
When they smoke in the house again the next eviction hearing, again with a tenant witness, should succeed in eviction.
Good luck. This will be a very long process. You might hasten his departure if You schedule regular inspections of the unit. He may also be growing.
You must have another tenant at the hearing to testify in person, written statement from tenants is not sufficient they must testify in person, you will likely have the tenant be given a conditional stay if they guarantee they will not smoke in the unit again. Ask that you be given the right to immediately apply for eviction of they break that agreement. That will of course be denied as the board will want the tenant to have the right to another hearing.
When they smoke in the house again the next eviction hearing, again with a tenant witness, should succeed in eviction.
Good luck. This will be a very long process. You might hasten his departure if You schedule regular inspections of the unit. He may also be growing.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 120
The n6 notice does not allow an opportunity to correct the problem.
http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/csc/_ltb/_forms/documents/form/stel02_111569.pdf
You can apply right away based on the test suggested above.
http://www.ltb.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/csc/_ltb/_forms/documents/form/stel02_111569.pdf
You can apply right away based on the test suggested above.
S
Seeley
Guest
Guest
The N6 is not the appropriate application in this instance. The Board is restricted to ruling only on the application before it and since smoking of pot in a apartment is not considered illegal it will be denied. I have taken N6s to the board before and have learned they are not interested in evicting tenants simply due to illegal activities. Unless the activity directly impacts other tenants in a major way they don't care.
The N5 is "interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants" and as such assuming another tenant is present to testify the facts will be considered somewhat more seriously. Without another tenant present to complain the board will however also deny the N5 application.
Landlords need to be aware of the fact that the primary purpose of the LTB is to keep tenants in your apartment not to support landlords in putting them on the street. The government is very aware of the fact that the majority of tenants being evicted are already on social assistance and evicting them will only place more burden on the government to take care of them.
The N5 is "interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants" and as such assuming another tenant is present to testify the facts will be considered somewhat more seriously. Without another tenant present to complain the board will however also deny the N5 application.
Landlords need to be aware of the fact that the primary purpose of the LTB is to keep tenants in your apartment not to support landlords in putting them on the street. The government is very aware of the fact that the majority of tenants being evicted are already on social assistance and evicting them will only place more burden on the government to take care of them.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 120
Really, I thought smoking pot was illegal.
And if it disturbs other tenants that it is like you say...illegal activity that causes a problem is grounds for eviction. Why give an N5 for the same test but conduct that is not illegal ?.
The N6 is exactly the right notice under reason 2 illegal act other than trafficking or production of narcotics.
The illegal act being possession other than for the purpose of trafficikng.
Then again I only have one CMHC client left who deals with these issues.
How many drug dealers do you evict in a month ?
And if it disturbs other tenants that it is like you say...illegal activity that causes a problem is grounds for eviction. Why give an N5 for the same test but conduct that is not illegal ?.
The N6 is exactly the right notice under reason 2 illegal act other than trafficking or production of narcotics.
The illegal act being possession other than for the purpose of trafficikng.
Then again I only have one CMHC client left who deals with these issues.
How many drug dealers do you evict in a month ?
S
Seeley
Guest
Guest
The LTB will never rule that personal use of pot from a legal stand point will justify eviction. It isn't hurting any one but the user. This means that even if a N6 is supported by testimony of another tenant and the board wanted to evict they will deny the application because they only have the authority under a N6 application to rule on the legal issue and in the case of pot they will never do that.
The reason why the board will not evict for pot being illegal is because it is legal terrain they are not equipped to deal with. It is not a serious enough act in itself to justify eviction. I have run a N6 on a tenant of mine that was using and dealing and they refused to evict. The back room advice I received was take it from a different angle - file a N5.
They will deny the application every time as they do not want to get into the legality of pot smoking. They know the police will not even bother to file charges in a personal use case. The legal issue of personal pot use is not water the board wishes to wade into.
When you use a N5 the board only has to deal with the impact the smoke has on other tenants not on whether the use of pot is illegal. This is a far safer matter for the board to rule on without setting any precedents. You still will not get an eviction first go round but it does open up the possibilities of evicting at a second filing.
The reason why the board will not evict for pot being illegal is because it is legal terrain they are not equipped to deal with. It is not a serious enough act in itself to justify eviction. I have run a N6 on a tenant of mine that was using and dealing and they refused to evict. The back room advice I received was take it from a different angle - file a N5.
They will deny the application every time as they do not want to get into the legality of pot smoking. They know the police will not even bother to file charges in a personal use case. The legal issue of personal pot use is not water the board wishes to wade into.
When you use a N5 the board only has to deal with the impact the smoke has on other tenants not on whether the use of pot is illegal. This is a far safer matter for the board to rule on without setting any precedents. You still will not get an eviction first go round but it does open up the possibilities of evicting at a second filing.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 120
Thanks for explaining.
It has been 6 years since I argued the first case in Ontario to evict for smoking cigarettes.
The trick is to rigger ONE of the grounds for eviction,
The LTB can ALWAYS refuse to evict.
What I was trying to get across is that illegal activity and substantial interference are the same test: How much it interferes with other people.
Hence it is easier to make out one incident on the N6 than the 2 required by N5's.
After that it is the same test: - should the tenant be evicted in all the circumstances.
That test is totally unrelated to the type of notice.
There is no debate about whether it is illegal to smoke pot unless the poll is taken in a group that is 50% potheads. It might be harmless but that is addressed by having the other tenants complain.
It has been 6 years since I argued the first case in Ontario to evict for smoking cigarettes.
The trick is to rigger ONE of the grounds for eviction,
The LTB can ALWAYS refuse to evict.
What I was trying to get across is that illegal activity and substantial interference are the same test: How much it interferes with other people.
Hence it is easier to make out one incident on the N6 than the 2 required by N5's.
After that it is the same test: - should the tenant be evicted in all the circumstances.
That test is totally unrelated to the type of notice.
There is no debate about whether it is illegal to smoke pot unless the poll is taken in a group that is 50% potheads. It might be harmless but that is addressed by having the other tenants complain.
S
Seeley
Guest
Guest
It is also not a bad idea to file both a N6 and a N5. Filed together there is only the one fee but still the board will only consider the evidence in regards to "interfering with reasonable enjoyment" of another tenant. There must be considerable evidence of interference. The board will not evict for illegal activity by itself.
I can not over emphasize the importance of having another tenant testify at the hearing as the board does not give any credence to a landlords testimony in such a case.
I had one case where the other tenants feared retribution from the tenant I was attempting to evict. They had good reason to fear the tenant as threats had been made. No tenant would testify and I was told at the hearing that if other tenants were not willing to testify then he could only conclude they did not care. Application denied.
I can not over emphasize the importance of having another tenant testify at the hearing as the board does not give any credence to a landlords testimony in such a case.
I had one case where the other tenants feared retribution from the tenant I was attempting to evict. They had good reason to fear the tenant as threats had been made. No tenant would testify and I was told at the hearing that if other tenants were not willing to testify then he could only conclude they did not care. Application denied.